I would consider 07 successful if GB

[Bretsky]

An interesting question to ponder

[Packnut]

Just go 9-7.

[BallHawk]

Yeah, 9-7 would be good. And, knowing the NFC, that just could be good enough to get you into the playoffs.

[Joemailman]

Finishing above .500 would be the next logical step up. Actually, finishing above .500 and making the playoffs are probably the same thing in the NFC.

[MJZiggy]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

[Bretsky]

Yeah, 9-7 would be good. And, knowing the NFC, that just could be good enough to get you into the playoffs.

So is that the measuring bar for succcess for you ?

[Bretsky]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

This is what I figured; there are only a couple TT extremists in here IMO and they will never want any meaurables to be on record so there is always a way out. I was curious about this question; the failure thread intrigues me a heck of a lot more.

[packinpatland]

I think 9 and 7 is doable.

As long as two of those 9 include the Bears. :wink:

[Bretsky]

I think 9 and 7 is doable.

As long as two of those 9 include the Bears. :wink:


Yes, that would be nice

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Can't vote, their is no win the super bowl option. :wink:









Ok really, a successful season would be:

1) As MJ said, the D not give up the big plays.
2) The defense being top 5 in the league (the only weakness I see is safety)
3) The O-line improves to the point were they don't need to max protect every play.
4) Favre throwing less than 15 picks.
5) Driver still being Driver.
6) lots of improvement from our young guys.
7) Favre having fun and coming back next year.
8) Going at least 10-6. (After three years of building a team, 10-6 should be attainable if your a good GM).

[MJZiggy]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

This is what I figured; there are only a couple TT extremists in here IMO and they will never want any meaurables to be on record so there is always a way out. I was curious about this question; the failure thread intrigues me a heck of a lot more.

My answer had nothing at all to do with TT. You wanted to know how I would measure success. Well, success is improvement and I thought of the areas that needed improvement and if the schedule is as difficult as you guys keep telling me it is, then W-L becomes less of an accurate benchmark for measuring improvement from our "pansy" schedule last year. You didn't give me the option I wanted in the failure thread.

[The Leaper]

It is all about improvement at this point.

Can we avoid embarrassing shutouts in 2007?

Can we make Lambeau more of a HFA in 2007?

Can the running game and blocking scheme show marked improvement in year #2?

Can young kids drafted in the last 3 years continue to improve in 2007?

We went 8-8 last year solely because our division was one of the weakest in the NFL and we went 5-1 in it. We often fell on the sword in crunch time. I hardly view this team as a legitimate playoff contender, and would be very surprised if we finished better than 8-8. There is still far too much inexperience on this team...both players and coaching staff...to win consistently.

[retailguy]

then W-L becomes less of an accurate benchmark for measuring improvement

Tell that to Mike Sherman. :shock:

[retailguy]

We went 8-8 last year solely because our division was one of the weakest in the NFL and we went 5-1 in it.


Kind of puts 2006 into perspective, doesn't it? We got one game from the playoffs largely BECAUSE - we beat the Lions who have been hapless since 2000, and have the WORST record in the NFL since that point, AND we beat up on the Vikings who didn't have ANY KIND OF OFFENSE, in 2006, at all. Also, we got a "garbage time" win over the Bears, who completely sucked that game, but really had very little, except pride, to play for.

So, in terms of the rest of the NFL, in 2006, we won THREE GAMES. :?:

Wow. Those of you who think that this team is "playoff ready" really need to ponder this. :cry:

[LL2]

We went 8-8 last year solely because our division was one of the weakest in the NFL and we went 5-1 in it.


Kind of puts 2006 into perspective, doesn't it? We got one game from the playoffs largely BECAUSE - we beat the Lions who have been hapless since 2000, and have the WORST record in the NFL since that point, AND we beat up on the Vikings who didn't have ANY KIND OF OFFENSE, in 2006, at all. Also, we got a "garbage time" win over the Bears, who completely sucked that game, but really had very little, except pride, to play for.

So, in terms of the rest of the NFL, in 2006, we won THREE GAMES. :?:

Wow. Those of you who think that this team is "playoff ready" really need to ponder this. :cry:

Things can change from one season to the next. Just look at last years Saints. The Pack could easily go 9-7 this year or better, but they could just as easity repeat an 8-8 season or do worse. I’m not a big believer that how a team finish the previous one will translate into success or failure from one season to the next. There is too much time between seasons and often a lot of personal changes (but not too much in the Packers case). I do think we will go at least 9-7 for the reason that all of the teams young players, which consisted of about 50% of the team, now has 1-2 years under their belt. Throw in some success from one or two players from this year’s rookie class, perhaps Harrell or Jackson, and we have a continuing improving team.

[The Leaper]

Things can change from one season to the next. Just look at last years Saints.

The Saints were a legitimate playoff contending team prior to 2005...but they played in one of the toughest divisions in football which usually hindered their chances. Then Katrina wiped out the city and turned the 2005 season into a complete debacle. Fortunately for New Orleans, the bad season did offer them the #2 pick in the draft...and then they got even luckier when Houston stupidly decided to forego a certain offensive playmaker like Bush for a combine king DE.

Green Bay wasn't a legitimate playoff team last year...in a crappy division that practically gave them 5 wins. While I expect the team to improve based on experience, the improvement isn't going to be phenominal with a rather inexperienced coaching staff. Without adding a few other key components through FA...which is part of what helped us improve last year (Woodson, Pickett)...I don't see how this team takes a big step forward in 2007.

[woodbuck27]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

This is what I figured; there are only a couple TT extremists in here IMO and they will never want any meaurables to be on record so there is always a way out. I was curious about this question; the failure thread intrigues me a heck of a lot more.

My answer had nothing at all to do with TT. You wanted to know how I would measure success. Well, success is improvement and I thought of the areas that needed improvement and if the schedule is as difficult as you guys keep telling me it is, then W-L becomes less of an accurate benchmark for measuring improvement from our "pansy" schedule last year. You didn't give me the option I wanted in the failure thread.

Geeee, I thought I was the tough guy. :)

Many here expect alot more fr. our season than I believe is realistic.

If we go 8-8 given the SOS we have this season, then I'll consider this season a step forward.

GO PACKERS !!

[retailguy]

Things can change from one season to the next. Just look at last years Saints. The Pack could easily go 9-7 this year or better, but they could just as easity repeat an 8-8 season or do worse. I’m not a big believer that how a team finish the previous one will translate into success or failure from one season to the next. There is too much time between seasons and often a lot of personal changes (but not too much in the Packers case). I do think we will go at least 9-7 for the reason that all of the teams young players, which consisted of about 50% of the team, now has 1-2 years under their belt. Throw in some success from one or two players from this year’s rookie class, perhaps Harrell or Jackson, and we have a continuing improving team.

Sure, plenty of things can change from one season to the next. Problem - Green Bay is planning almost ENTIRELY on changes from within or draft choices. New Orleans is a very bad example of your point. They went out and got a bunch of guys in free agency last year. Some stepped up, some didn't. Some probably created competition which spurred those already in New Orleans to get better. You can't ignore the chaos that Katrina created there either, the 2005 squad largely underachieved because of the chaotic situation. My point is - many different types of change, coupled with an entirely new coaching staff and a new philosophy. They didn't just "count on" changes from within the organization.

It will be interesting to see how much, or if, this team improves. My point was related to "playoff ready", and I think the 2006 season is fairly representative of the "health" of this franchise. Yes, we won 8 games, but, equally yes, we beat one team with a winning record, and three teams from outside the NFC North. That's also true, and is frequently being overlooked/ignored in these rooms.

[CaptainKickass]

There is only one successful team in the NFL every year.

Everyone else is a loser.

[oregonpackfan]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

Here, here! Well put, MJZiggy!

[oregonpackfan]

I think 9 and 7 is doable.

As long as two of those 9 include the Bears. :wink:

Packinpackland,

Don't forget the @$&*! Vikings!

I want the Packers to beat them twice again this year.

[packinpatland]

I think 9 and 7 is doable.

As long as two of those 9 include the Bears. :wink:

Packinpackland,

Don't forget the @$&*! Vikings!

I want the Packers to beat them twice again this year.

Only 5 more to account for. :wink:

[The Shadow]

I would consider 007 successful in Green Bay if he marries Ms. Moneypenny at Lambeau during halftime of the Bear's game.

[Joemailman]

Shadow,

On this forum, 007 is not a he. :crazy: http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/images/avatars/8.jpg

[Bretsky]

I'll measure success at the moment by the defense tightening up and not giving up the big or stupid plays and the offense showing improvement in the line, fewer drops and less questionable decisions. If they do that, the wins will materialize.

This is what I figured; there are only a couple TT extremists in here IMO and they will never want any meaurables to be on record so there is always a way out. I was curious about this question; the failure thread intrigues me a heck of a lot more.

My answer had nothing at all to do with TT. You wanted to know how I would measure success. Well, success is improvement and I thought of the areas that needed improvement and if the schedule is as difficult as you guys keep telling me it is, then W-L becomes less of an accurate benchmark for measuring improvement from our "pansy" schedule last year. You didn't give me the option I wanted in the failure thread.

Great politician; say nothing bold so there is nothing to debate about.

Who cares about weakness or strength of schedule; take your own view and modify if you agree or do not. I think it's fair to measure a team, or TT, by their win and loss record. Maybe your expectations for success is incredibly low (6 wins for instance if you think last year's record was a mirage due to schedule) ; but I'd get a kick out of seeing something, anything, specific that is measurable.

[Bretsky]

One more thing; right or wrong I'm consistent.

Green Bay had $25,000 of cap space to work with this year; TT decided how to utilize that

Green Bay was .500 last year.

Worthy or not we were near a .500 squad and I think it's very practical to say that GB needs to make the playoffs for a success

And if GB does not make the playoffs it was a failure.

And TT is in charge of putting this personnell together as well as the staff so IMO you can attach his label for Green Bay if you choose.

I would not want to be accused of not stating my view when I am trying to get others to as well.


Cheers,
B

[The Shadow]

Shadow,

On this forum, 007 is not a he. :crazy: http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/images/avatars/8.jpg


007, you can never be anything LESS than a rousing success, a delight, an exalted , angelic being, and a ray of sunshine on this forum.
Therefore, I assumed that it was a lesser personage.
Please accept my humble apology...... :cry:

[GrnBay007]

Please accept my humble apology...... :cry:

Welllll...

Hmmm...

OK

:P

The angelic part really worked. :wink:

[The Shadow]

Please accept my humble apology...... :cry:

Welllll...

Hmmm...

OK

:P

The angelic part really worked. :wink:

I usually hook that up with "part angelic innocent, part seductive temptress"; I've gotten some mileage with that over the years. 8-)

[Bretsky]

Note:

Early results indicate over 2 out of three PR required Green Bay to improve their 2006 record for the season to be a success

[GBRulz]

Winning at least 5 home games this year.

[esoxx]

One more thing; right or wrong I'm consistent.

Green Bay had $25,000,000 of cap space to work with this year; TT decided how to utilize that

Green Bay was .500 last year.

Worthy or not we were near a .500 squad and I think it's very practical to say that GB needs to make the playoffs for a success

And if GB does not make the playoffs it was a failure.

And TT is in charge of putting this personnell together as well as the staff so IMO you can attach his label for Green Bay if you choose.

I would not want to be accused of not stating my view when I am trying to get others to as well.


Cheers,
B

:bow: :bow: :bow: :worship: :worship: :worship: :glug: :glug: :glug:

[Packers4Ever]

I think 9 and 7 is doable.

As long as two of those 9 include the Bears. :wink:

That's a given, pip, :wink: But one other thing,
no more losing precious yardage making the
same old mental mistakes - does offsides
ring a bell ?

[Bretsky]

One more thing; right or wrong I'm consistent.

Green Bay had $25,000,000 of cap space to work with this year; TT decided how to utilize that

Green Bay was .500 last year.

Worthy or not we were near a .500 squad and I think it's very practical to say that GB needs to make the playoffs for a success

And if GB does not make the playoffs it was a failure.

And TT is in charge of putting this personnell together as well as the staff so IMO you can attach his label for Green Bay if you choose.

I would not want to be accused of not stating my view when I am trying to get others to as well.


Cheers,
B

:bow: :bow: :bow: :worship: :worship: :worship: :glug: :glug: :glug:


I'm honored; I don't get many bows.......quantity over quality is my motto :lol:

[Rastak]

One more thing; right or wrong I'm consistent.

Green Bay had $25,000,000 of cap space to work with this year; TT decided how to utilize that

Green Bay was .500 last year.

Worthy or not we were near a .500 squad and I think it's very practical to say that GB needs to make the playoffs for a success

And if GB does not make the playoffs it was a failure.

And TT is in charge of putting this personnell together as well as the staff so IMO you can attach his label for Green Bay if you choose.

I would not want to be accused of not stating my view when I am trying to get others to as well.


Cheers,
B

:bow: :bow: :bow: :worship: :worship: :worship: :glug: :glug: :glug:


I'm honored; I don't get many bows.......quantity over quality is my motto :lol:


Bretsky, the TT of Packer Rats! (just kidding)

[Bretsky]

One more thing; right or wrong I'm consistent.

Green Bay had $25,000,000 of cap space to work with this year; TT decided how to utilize that

Green Bay was .500 last year.

Worthy or not we were near a .500 squad and I think it's very practical to say that GB needs to make the playoffs for a success

And if GB does not make the playoffs it was a failure.

And TT is in charge of putting this personnell together as well as the staff so IMO you can attach his label for Green Bay if you choose.

I would not want to be accused of not stating my view when I am trying to get others to as well.


Cheers,
B

:bow: :bow: :bow: :worship: :worship: :worship: :glug: :glug: :glug:


I'm honored; I don't get many bows.......quantity over quality is my motto :lol:


Bretsky, the TT of Packer Rats! (just kidding)

LMAO; comparing me to TT.

If you were in my area I'd be egging your house right now.

But then I'd forget about the urgency and go back to the TV and watch film for next year's draft :lol:

[CaliforniaCheez]

One more thing; right or wrong I'm consistent.

Green Bay had $25,000 of cap space to work with this year; TT decided how to utilize that

Green Bay was .500 last year.

Worthy or not we were near a .500 squad and I think it's very practical to say that GB needs to make the playoffs for a success

And if GB does not make the playoffs it was a failure.

And TT is in charge of putting this personnell together as well as the staff so IMO you can attach his label for Green Bay if you choose.

I would not want to be accused of not stating my view when I am trying to get others to as well.


Cheers,
B

So are you now willingly to say Ted is part of the solution instead of part of the problem?

[Brohm]

Now that we are 7-1, I think the bar has to be raised substantially. I would venture hosting/winning any/all home play-off game would be successful.

9-7 or 10-6 would mean a second half collapse at this point (with 2 home games in Dec to boot) :evil:

[LL2]

I said 9-7. I'm glad I was wrong! Now I'm thinking 13-3 with a 1st rd bye and home field in 1st game.

[Bretsky]

One more thing; right or wrong I'm consistent.

Green Bay had $25,000 of cap space to work with this year; TT decided how to utilize that

Green Bay was .500 last year.

Worthy or not we were near a .500 squad and I think it's very practical to say that GB needs to make the playoffs for a success

And if GB does not make the playoffs it was a failure.

And TT is in charge of putting this personnell together as well as the staff so IMO you can attach his label for Green Bay if you choose.

I would not want to be accused of not stating my view when I am trying to get others to as well.


Cheers,
B

So are you now willingly to say Ted is part of the solution instead of part of the problem?

He appears to be; I underestimated TT and am willing to admit to that.

The only GM I bow to and give my unconditional faith to is Ron Wolf.

If TT wins a Super Bowl from Green Bay I will do the same for him.

[Deputy Nutz]

I said 10-6 and if the Lions are as good as all the crazies in the media like to believe you have to factor their new found ability to win games. The Packers have 4 more division games and the Vikings have found their wonder boy that now poses a serious threat to the Packers. The Packers have the Cowboys left to play, but they also have St Louis and Oakland left.

Like I said if the Packers went 10-6 or a 11-5 I would still be happy go back a read all these 6-10 posts or 4-12 posts, and be happy for a division title and a home playoff game.

[oregonpackfan]

My initial forecast was 9-7. Who possibly, except for the most delusional Kool-
Aid drinker, would have thought the Packers would be 7-1 at this point in the season?

I also felt it would be a success if the Packers made it to the playoffs. Now, I would want them to win at least 1 playoff game.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I said 8-8. I'd be happy with a playoff berth, but I'm starting to expect us to be playing in the second round of the playoffs.

[Rastak]

I said 8-8. I'd be happy with a playoff berth, but I'm starting to expect us to be playing in the second round of the playoffs.


I can see why. Green Bay is really putting things together thus far. I'm very impressed. Very.

[The Shadow]

I simply look for the league's youngest team to continue to improve - and finding ways to win is part of that.
Honestly don't care all that much about losing in the playoffs (should we make it) - the very fact the arrow is pointed WAY up bodes well for a very successful future.

[gbgary]

since i picked us to finish 6-10 (or something close to that, maybe worse) if we finished 500 i'd have been happy with that. since i was such a poor judge of the teams on our schedule and their obvious down-cycles, and the fact that we have improved both talent and health wise (knock on wood) i'd be disappointed with anything less than the division title. this has really been a fun 11-1 run. i hope it keeps going for a loooong time. if we can't win but one more game this season please let it be the cowboys. :D

[CaliforniaCheez]

Anyone else notice that within a day of me bumping this thread the Press Gazette put up a very similar poll?